Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors in punctuation have been silently
corrected.
These typos were corrected:
page 321 - corrected “plu8” to “plus”
page 379 - corrected placement of hyphen and “r” from
“ex sue crear
cionis priuilegio supe-”
to
“ex sue crea-
cionis priuilegio super”
page 414 - corrected “Twelth” to “Twelfth”
line 11556 - corrected "d ela" to "de la"
Index - corrected "tresepoentablement" to "tresespoentablement"
All other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.
Italics are represented thus _italic_, superscripts thus y^n, bold thus
=bold=.
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER
_G. C. MACAULAY_
*
THE FRENCH WORKS
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
[Illustration]
LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK
[Illustration: CAMB. UNIV. MS. ADD. 3035 (UPPER PORTION F. 149^{ro})]
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER
_EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND GLOSSARIES_
BY
G. C. MACAULAY, M.A.
FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
*
THE FRENCH WORKS
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1899
Oxford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PREFACE
The publication of this book may most conveniently be explained by a
short account of the circumstances which brought it about.
While engaged some years ago in studying the Chaucer manuscripts in the
Bodleian Library, I incidentally turned my attention also to those of
the _Confessio Amantis_. The unsatisfactory character of the existing
editions of that poem was sufficiently well known, and it was generally
recognized that the printed text could not safely be referred to by
philologists, except so far as those small portions were concerned
which happened to have been published from a good manuscript by Mr. A.
J. Ellis in his _Early English Pronunciation_; so that, in spite of the
acknowledged importance of the book in the history of the development
of standard literary English, it was practically useless for linguistic
studies. I was struck by the excellence of the authorities for its
text which existed at Oxford, and on further investigation I convinced
myself that it was here that the much needed new edition could best be
produced. Accordingly I submitted to the Delegates of the University
Press a proposal to edit the _Confessio Amantis_, and this proposal
they accepted on the condition that I would undertake to edit also the
other works, chiefly in French and Latin, of the same author, expressly
desiring that the _Speculum Meditantis_, which I had lately identified
while searching the Cambridge libraries for copies of the _Confessio
Amantis_, should be included in the publication. To this condition I
assented with some hesitation, which was due partly to my feeling that
the English text was the only one really needed, and partly to doubts
about my own competence to edit the French.
Considering, however, the extent to which the writings of this author
in various languages illustrate one another, the help which is to be
derived from the French works in dealing with the Romance element
in the English not only of Gower, but also of Chaucer and other
writers of the time, and the clearer view of the literary position
of the _Confessio Amantis_ which is gained by approaching it from
the French side, I am now disposed to think that the Delegates were
right in desiring a complete edition; and as for my own competence
as an editor, I can only say that I have learnt much since I first
undertook the work, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I
have avoided many errors into which I should once have fallen. For
the faults that remain (I speak now of the contents of the present
volume) I ask the indulgence of those who are more competent Romance
scholars than myself, on the ground that it was clearly desirable
under the circumstances that the French and the English should have
the same editor. Moreover, I may fairly claim to have given faithful
and intelligible texts, and if I have gone wrong in other respects, it
has been chiefly because I have wished to carry out the principle of
dealing with all difficulties fairly, rather than passing them over
without notice.
The English works will occupy the second and third volumes of this
edition. From what has been said it will be understood that to publish
a correct text of the _Confessio Amantis_ has been throughout the main
object. For this the materials are so excellent, though hitherto almost
completely neglected, that we may with some confidence claim that
the work is now presented almost exactly as it left the hand of the
author, and that a higher degree of security has been attained about
the details of form and orthography than is possible (for example) in
regard to any part of the writings of Chaucer. It is evident, if this
be so, that the text must have a considerable value for students of
Middle English, and none the less because it is here accompanied by a
complete glossary. Besides this, the meaning of the text has been made
clear, where necessary, by explanation and illustration, and above
all by improved punctuation, and the sources of the stories and the
literary connexions of the work generally have been traced as far as
possible.
In the edition of the _Vox Clamantis_, which with the other Latin
Works will form the fourth volume of this edition, the most important
new contribution, besides the account of the various manuscripts, is
perhaps the view presented of the author’s political development,
as shown in the successive variations of the text. The historical
references generally, both in this work and in the _Cronica
Tripertita_, have been compared with the accounts given of the same
events by other contemporary writers. This volume will also contain a
statement of such facts as it is possible to gather with regard to the
life of the author.
To a great extent this edition breaks fresh ground, and there are
unfortunately but few direct obligations to be acknowledged to former
workers in precisely the same field. At the same time the very greatest
help is afforded to the editor of Gower by the work that has been done
upon Chaucer and other fourteenth-century writers both by societies and
individuals, work for which in this country Dr. Furnivall and Professor
Skeat, and on the Continent Professor ten Brink, are perhaps most
largely responsible.
Much of my work has been done in the Bodleian Library and with Bodleian
manuscripts, and I should like to acknowledge the courtesy which I have
always received there from the Librarian. My thanks are also due to
the Librarians of those Colleges, both at Oxford and Cambridge, which
possess Gower manuscripts, and to Dr. Young of the Hunterian Museum,
Glasgow, for the trouble which they have taken in giving me facilities
for the use of their books, and especially to the Cambridge University
Librarian, Mr. Jenkinson, for assistance of various kinds in connexion
with the manuscript of the _Mirour de l’Omme_. I am obliged to the
Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, for the loan of their
manuscript of the _Vox Clamantis_, and to several private owners, the
Duke of Sutherland, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Marquess of Bute,
the Earl of Ellesmere, Lord Middleton, and J. H. Gurney, Esq., for
having allowed me to make use of their manuscripts.
Finally, my thanks are due to the Delegates of the Oxford University
Press for having undertaken the publication of a book which can hardly
be very profitable, and for the consideration which they have shown for
me in the course of my work.
OXFORD, 1899.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION xi
MIROUR DE L’OMME 1
CINKANTE BALADES 335
TRAITIÉ POUR ESSAMPLER LES AMANTZ MARIETZ 379
NOTES 393
GLOSSARY AND INDEX OF PROPER NAMES 475
INDEX TO THE NOTES 563
INTRODUCTION
From a statement in Latin which is found in many of the Gower
manuscripts, and undoubtedly proceeds from the author himself, we learn
that the poet desired to rest his fame upon three principal works, the
first in French, the second in Latin, and the third in English. These
are the three volumes which, lying one upon another, form a pillow for
the poet’s effigy in the church of Saint Saviour, Southwark, where he
was buried. They are known by the Latin names, _Speculum Meditantis_,
_Vox Clamantis_, _Confessio Amantis_, but the first of the three has
until recently been looked upon as lost. In addition there are minor
poems in each of the three languages, among which are two series of
French balades. It will be my duty afterwards to prove the identity
of the _Mirour de l’Omme_ printed in this volume with our author’s
earliest principal work, commonly known as _Speculum Meditantis_, but
named originally _Speculum Hominis_; in the mean time I shall ask leave
to assume this as proved, in order that a general view may be taken of
Gower’s French writings before we proceed to the examination of each
particular work.
The Anglo-Norman[A] literature, properly so called, can hardly be
said to extend beyond the limits of the fourteenth century, and these
therefore are among its latest productions. The interest of this
literature in itself and its importance with a view to the Romance
element in the English language have been adequately recognized within
recent years, though the number of literary texts printed is still
too small. It is unnecessary therefore to do more here than to call
attention to the special position occupied by the works published in
this volume, and the interest attaching to them, first on their own
merits, then on account of the period to which they belong and the
author from whom they proceed, and lastly from the authenticity and
correctness of the manuscripts which supply us with their text.
As regards the work which occupies the greater part of the present
volume, it would be absurd to claim for it a high degree of literary
merit, but it is nevertheless a somewhat noticeable and interesting
performance. The all-embracing extent of its design, involving a
complete account not only of the moral nature of Man, but of the
principles of God’s dealings with the world and with the human race,
is hardly less remarkable than the thoroughness with which the scheme
is worked out in detail and the familiarity with the Scriptures which
the writer constantly displays. He has a far larger conception of his
subject as a whole than other authors of ‘Specula’ or classifiers
of Vices and Virtues which the age produced. Compare the _Mirour de
l’Omme_ with such works as the _Speculum Vitae_ or the _Manuel des
Pechiez_, and we shall be struck not only with the greater unity of its
plan, but also with its greater comprehensiveness, while at the same
time, notwithstanding its oppressive lengthiness, it has in general a
flavour of literary style to which most other works of the same class
can lay no claim. Though intended, like the rest, for edification, it
does not aim at edification alone: by the side of the moralist there is
occasionally visible also a poet. This was the work upon which Gower’s
reputation rested when Chaucer submitted _Troilus_ to his judgement,
and though he may have been indulging his sense of humour in making
Gower one of the correctors of his version of that--
‘geste
De Troÿlus et de la belle
Creseide,’
which the moralist had thought only good enough for the indolent
worshipper to dream of in church (_Mir._ 5253), yet the dedication must
have been in part at least due to respect for the literary taste of the
persons addressed.
If however we must on the whole pronounce the literary value of the
_Speculum Meditantis_ to be small, the case is quite different with
regard to the _Balades_, that is to say, the collection of about fifty
love-poems which is found in the Trentham manuscript. These will be
discussed in detail later, and reasons will be given for assigning them
to the later rather than to the earlier years of the poet’s life. Here
it is enough to say that they are for the most part remarkably good,
better indeed than anything of their kind which was produced in England
at that period, and superior in my opinion to the balades of Granson,
‘flour of hem that make in France,’ some of which Chaucer translated.
But for the accident that they were written in French, this series
of balades would have taken a very distinct place in the history of
English literature.
The period to which the _Speculum Meditantis_ belongs, about the
beginning of the last quarter of the fourteenth century, is that in
which the fusion of French and English elements from which the later
language grew may be said to have been finally accomplished. Thanks to
the careful work of English and German philologists in recent years,
the process by which French words passed into the English language
in the period from the beginning of the thirteenth to the end of the
fourteenth century has been sufficiently traced, so far as regards the
actual facts of their occurrence in English texts. Perhaps however
the real nature of the process has not been set forth with sufficient
clearness. It is true that before the end of the reign of Edward III
the French element may be said to have been almost fully introduced
into the vocabulary; the materials lay ready for those writers, the
Wycliffite translators of the Bible, Chaucer, and Gower himself, who
were to give the stamp of their authority to the language which was
to be the literary language of England. Nevertheless, French words
were still French for these writers, and not yet English; the fact
that the two languages were still used side by side, and that to
every Englishman of literary culture the form of French which existed
in England was as a second mother tongue, long preserved a French
citizenship for the borrowed words. In the earlier part of this period
they came in simply as aliens, and their meaning was explained when
they were used, ‘in _desperaunce_, that is in unhope and in unbileave,’
‘two _manere temptaciuns_, two kunne vondunges’; and afterwards for
long, even though they had been repeatedly employed by English writers,
they were not necessarily regarded as English words, but when wanted
they were usually borrowed again from the original source, and so had
their phonetic development in French rather than in English. When
therefore Anglo-Norman forms are to be cited for English etymology, it
is evidently more reasonable that the philologist should look to the
latter half of the fourteenth century and give the form in which the
word finally passed into the literary language, than to the time of the
first appearance of the word in English, under a form corresponding
perhaps to the Anglo-Norman of the thirteenth century, but different
from that which it assumed in the later Anglo-Norman, and thence in
English. More precision in these citations is certainly to be desired,
even though the time be past when etymologists were content to refer
us vaguely to ‘Old French,’ meaning usually the sixteenth-century
French of Cotgrave, when the form really required was of the fourteenth
century and Anglo-Norman. It is not unreasonable to lay down the rule
that for words of Anglo-Norman origin which occur in the English
literary language of the Chaucer period, illustration of forms and
meanings must first be looked for in the Anglo-Norman texts of that
period, since the standard writers, as we may call them, that is those
who contributed most to fix the standard of the language, in using
them had the Anglo-Norman of their own day before their minds and eyes
rather than any of the obscure English books in various dialects,
where the words in question may have been already used to supply the
defects of a speech which had lost its literary elements. Moreover,
theories as to the pronunciation of the English of Chaucer’s day have
been largely supported by reference to the supposed pronunciation of
the French words imported into English and the manner in which they are
used in rhyme. Evidently in this case the reference ought to be to the
Anglo-Norman speech of this particular period, in the form in which it
was used by those writers of English to whose texts we refer.
But this is not all: beside the question of language there is one
of literary history. At the beginning of the fourteenth century
Anglo-Norman literature had sunk into a very degraded condition.
Pierre de Peccham, William of Waddington, Pierre de Langtoft, and the
authors of the _Apocalypse_ and the _Descente de Saint Paul_ make the
very worst impression as versifiers upon their modern French critics,
and it must be allowed that the condemnation is just. They have in
fact lost their hold on all the principles of French verse, and their
metres are merely English in a French dress. Moreover, the English
metres which they resemble are those of the North rather than of the
South. If we compare the octosyllables of the _Manuel des Pechiez_ with
those of the _Prick of Conscience_ we shall see that their principle
is essentially the same, that of half-lines with two accents each,
irrespective of the number of unaccented syllables, though naturally in
English the irregularity is more marked. The same may be said of Robert
Grosseteste’s verse a little earlier than this, e.g.
‘Deu nus doint de li penser,
De ky, par ki, en ki sunt
Trestuz li biens ki al mund sunt,
Deu le pere et deu le fiz
Et deu le seint esperiz,
Persones treis en trinité
E un sul deu en unité,
Sanz fin et sanz comencement,’ &c.
It cannot be proved that all the writers of French whom I have named
were of the North, but it is certain that several of them were so,
and it may well be that the French used in England was not really so
uniform, ‘univoca,’ as it seemed to Higden, or at least that as the
South of England had more metrical regularity in its English verse,
witness the octosyllables of _The Owl and the Nightingale_ in the
thirteenth century, so also it retained more formal correctness in its
French. However that may be, and whether it were by reason of direct
continental influence or of the literary traditions of the South of
England, it is certain that Gower represents a different school of
versification from that of the writers whom we have mentioned, though
he uses the same (or nearly the same) Anglo-Norman dialect, and writes
verse which, as we shall see, is quite distinguishable in rhythm from
that of the Continent. Thus we perceive that by the side of that
reformation of English verse which was effected chiefly by Chaucer,
there is observable a return of Anglo-Norman verse to something of
its former regularity, and this in the hands of the very man who has
commonly been placed by the side of Chaucer as a leader of the new
school of English poetry.
* * * * *
In what follows I shall endeavour to indicate those points connected
with versification and language which are suggested by a general view
of Gower’s French works. Details as to his management of particular
metres are reserved for consideration in connexion with the works in
which they occur.
Gower’s metre, as has already been observed, is extremely regular. He
does not allow himself any of those grosser licences of suppression or
addition of syllables which have been noticed in Anglo-Norman verse
of the later period. Like William of Waddington, he apologizes for
his style on the ground that he is an Englishman, but in his case the
plea is very much less needed. His rhyming also, after allowance has
been made for a few well-established Anglo-Norman peculiarities, may
be said to be remarkably pure, more so in some respects than that of
Frère Angier, for example, who wrote at least a century and a half
earlier and was a decidedly good versifier. It is true that, like
other Anglo-Norman writers, he takes liberties with the forms of words
in flexion in order to meet the requirements of his rhyme, but these
must be regarded as sins against grammar rather than against rhyme,
and the French language in England had long been suffering decadence
in this respect. Moreover, when we come to examine these vagaries, we
shall find that they are by no means so wild in his case as they had
been in that of some other writers, and that there is a good deal of
method in the madness. The desired effect is attained principally by
two very simple expedients. The first of these is a tolerably extensive
disregard of gender, adjectives being often used indifferently in the
masculine or the feminine form, according to convenience. Thus in the
_Balades_[B] we have ‘chose _humein_’ xxiv. 3, but ‘toute autre chose
est _veine_’ xxxiii. 2, ‘ma fortune est _assis_’ ix. 5, ‘la fortune
est _faili_’ xx. 3, ‘corps _humeine_’ xiv. 1, ‘l’estée vient _flori_’
ii. 1, ‘l’estée beal _flori_’ xx. 2, but ‘La cliere estée’ xxxii. 2,
and the author says ‘_ce_ (_ceo_) lettre’ (ii. 4, iii. 4), or ‘_ceste_
lettre’ (xv. 4), according as it suits his metre. Similarly in the
_Mirour_ l. 92 ff.,
‘Siq’en apres de celle issue,
Que de leur corps serroit _estrait_,
Soit restoré q’estoit _perdue_’ &c.,
for _estraite_, _perdu_, l. 587 _hony_ for _honie_, 719 ‘la Char
_humein_,’ 911 _replenis_ for _replenies_, 1096 ‘deinz son cuer
_maliciouse_.’ From the use of _du_, _au_ by our author nothing must
be inferred about gender, since they are employed indifferently for
the masculine or feminine combination, as well as for the simple
prepositions _de_, _à_; and such forms as _celestial_, in _Bal. Ded._
i. 1, _cordial_, _enfernals_, _mortals_, _Mir._ 717, 1011, 1014, are
perhaps reminiscences of the older usage, though the inflected feminine
is also found. The question of the terminations _é_, _ée_ will be dealt
with separately.
No doubt the feeling for gender had been to some extent worn away in
England; nevertheless the measure in which this affects our author’s
language is after all rather limited. A much more wide-reaching
principle is that which has to do with the ‘rule of _s_.’ The old
System of French noun inflexion had already been considerably broken up
on the Continent, and it would not have been surprising if in England
it had altogether disappeared. In some respects however Anglo-Norman
was rather conservative of old forms, and our author is not only
acquainted with the rule, but often shows a preference for observing
it, where it is a matter of indifference in other respects. Rhyme
however must be the first consideration, and a great advantage is
obtained by the systematic combination of the older and the newer rule.
Thus the poet has it in his power either to use or to omit the _s_ of
inflexion in the nominatives singular and plural of masculine nouns,
according as his rhymes may require, and a few examples will show what
use he makes of this licence. In _Bal. Ded._ i. 3 he describes himself
as
‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestout _vos soubgitz_,’
but in rhyme with this the same form of inflexion stands for the plural
subject, ‘u sont les _ditz floriz_,’ and in xxvi. 1 he gives us nearly
the same expression, ‘q’est tout vostre _soubgit_,’ without the
inflexion. So in iv. 3 we have ‘come _tes loials amis_’ (sing. nom.),
but in the very same balade ‘_ton ami_ serrai,’ while in _Trait._ iii.
3 we have the further development of _s_ in the oblique case of the
singular, ‘Loiale amie avoec _loials amis_.’ In _Bal._ xviii. 1 _menu_
is apparently fem. pl. for _menues_, while _avenu_, rhyming with it,
is nom. sing. masc.; but so also are _conuz_, _retenuz_, _venuz_, in
xxxix, while _veeuz_ is sing. object., and in the phrase ‘tout bien
sont _contenuz_’ there is a combination of the uninflected with the
inflected form in the plural of the subject. Similarly in the _Mirour_
we have _principals_, _desloyals_, ll. 63, 70, as nom. sing., and so
_governals_, _desloyals_ 627, 630, but _espirital_ 709, _principal_,
_Emperial_, 961 ff., are forms used elsewhere for the same. Again as
nom. sing. we have _rejoïz_ 462, _ruez_, _honourez_, _malurez_ 544 ff.,
&c., and as nom. plur. _enamouré_ 17, _retorné_ 792, _marié_ (f) 1010,
_née_ 1017, _maluré_ 1128, _il_ 25064; but also _enamouré_ 220, _privé_
496, _mené_ 785, &c., as nom. singular, and _perturbez_, _tuez_, 3639
ff., _travaillez_, _abandonnez_, 5130 ff., as nom. plural: ‘ce dist
_ly sage_’ 1586, but ‘il est _nounsages_’ 1754, and ‘_Ly sages_ dist’
3925, _ly soverein_ 76, but _ly capiteins_ 4556, and so on. We also
note occasionally forms like that cited above from the _Traitié_, where
the _s_ (or _z_) of the termination has no grammatical justification at
all; e.g. _enginez_ 552, _confondus_ 1904, ‘fort et _halteins_’ (obj.)
13024, cp. _offenduz_, _Bal._ xxxix. 2, and cases where the rules which
properly apply to masculine nouns only are extended to feminines, as in
_perdice_ (pl.) 7831, _humilités_, _pités_ (sing.), 12499, 13902.
Besides these two principal helps to rhyme the later Anglo-Norman
versifier might occasionally fall back upon others. In so artificial
a language as that in which he wrote, evidently the older forms of
inflexion might easily be kept up for literary purposes in verbs also,
and used side by side with the later. Thus in the 1st pers. pl. of
the present tense we find _lison_ (_lisoun_) repeatedly in rhyme, and
occasionally other similar forms, as _soion_ 18480. The 1st pers. sing.
of the present tense of several strong verbs is inflected with or
without _s_ at pleasure: thus from _dire_ we have _di_, _dy_, as well
as _dis_; _faire_ gives _fai_ or _fais_; by the side of _suis_ (sum),
_sui_ or _suy_ is frequently found; and similarly we have _croy_,
_say_, _voi_. In the same part of first-conjugation verbs the atonic
final _e_ is often dropped, as _pri_, _appell_, _mir_, _m’esmai_,
_suppli_. In the third person singular of the preterite of _i_ verbs
there is a variation in the ending between _-it_ (_-ist_) and _-i_
(_-y_). Thus in one series of rhymes we have _nasquit_, _s’esjoït_
(in rhyme with _dit_, &c.), 268 ff., in another _s’esjoÿ_, _chery_,
_servi_ (in rhyme with _y_), 427 ff.; in one stanza _fuÿt_, _partist_,
11416 ff., and in the next _respondi_, 11429; so _chaït_ (_chaïst_)
and _chaÿ_, _obeït_ and _obeï_, &c. It may be doubted also whether
such words as _tesmoignal_, _surquidance_, _presumement_, _bestial_
(as subst.), _relinquir_, &c., owe their existence to any better
cause than the requirements of rhyme or metre. In introducing _ent_,
11471, for the usual _en_ the poet has antiquity on his side: on the
other hand when he writes _a_ repeatedly in rhyme for the Anglo-Norman
_ad_ (which, except in these cases, is regularly used) he is no doubt
looking towards the ‘French of Paris,’ which naturally tended to impose
itself on the English writers of French in the fourteenth century. By
the same rule he can say either _houre_ or _heure_, _flour_ or _fleur_,
_crestre_ or _croistre_, _crere_ or _croire_; but on the whole it is
rather surprising how little his language seems to have been affected
by this influence.
The later Anglo-Norman treatment of the terminations _-é_ and _-ée_
in past participles and in verbal substantives would seem to demand
notice chiefly in connexion with rhyme and metre, but it is really a
question of phonology. The two terminations, as is well known, became
identified before the beginning of the fourteenth century, and it is
needless to quote examples to show that in Gower’s metre and rhymes
_-ée_ was equivalent to _-é_. The result of this phonetic change,
consisting in the absorption of the atonic vowel by the similar tonic
which immediately preceded it, was that _-é_ and _-ée_ were written
indiscriminately in almost all words with this ending, and that
the distinction between the masculine and feminine forms was lost
completely in pronunciation and to a very great extent also in writing.
For example in _Mir._ 865 ff. we have rhyming together _degré_,
_monté_ (fem.), _mué_, _descolouré_ (fem.), _enbroudé_, _poudré_ (fem.
plur.); in 1705 ff. there is a series of rhymes in _-ée_, _bealpinée_,
_engalopée_, _assemblée_, _ascoultée_ (pl.), _malsenée_, _doublée_,
all masculine except the substantive _assemblée_; and in other stanzas
the endings are mixed up anyhow, so that we have _aisnée_, _maluré_,
244 f., both feminine, _mené_, _héritée_, 922 f., the first feminine
and the second masculine, _ymaginée_, _adrescée_, _Bal._ vi, both
masculine. In all Gower’s French verse I can recall only three or
four instances where an atonic final _e_ of this kind is counted in
the metre: these are _a lée chiere_, _ove lée_ (_liée_) _chiere_, _du
lée port_[C], _Mir._ 5179, 15518, 17122, 28337, and _Et ta pensée
celestine_ 29390. In the last the author perhaps wrote _penseie_, as in
14404, since the condition under which the sound of this _-e_ survived
in Anglo-Norman was usually through the introduction of a parasitic
_i_-sound, which acted as a barrier to prevent the absorption of the
final vowel[D]. So _Mir._ 10117 we have a word _pareies_, in rhyme
with the substantives _pareies_ (walls), _veies_, &c., which I take to
be for _parées_, fem. plur. of the participle, and in the same stanza
_journeies_, a modification of _journées_: cp. _valeie_, _journeie_, in
Middle English.
I proceed to note such further points of the Phonology as seem to be of
interest.
i. French _e_, _ie_, from Lat. _a_, _ĕ_, in tonic syllables.
The French diphthong _ie_, from Lat. _a_ under the influence of
preceding sound and from _ĕ_, was gradually reduced in Anglo-Norman
to _ẹ_ (i.e. close _e_). Thus, while in the earliest writers _ie_
is usually distinguished in rhyme from _e_, those of the thirteenth
century no longer keep them apart. In the _Vie de S. Auban_ and the
writings of Frère Angier the distinction between verbs in _-er_
and those in _-ier_ has been, at least to a great extent, lost:
infinitives and participles, &c., such as _enseign(i)er_, _bris(i)er_,
_eshauc(i)er_, _mang(i)er_, _jug(i)é_, _less(i)é_, _dresc(i)é_,
_sach(i)ez_, and substantives such as _cong(i)é_, _pecch(i)é_, rhyme
with those which have the (French) termination, _-er_, _-é_, _-ez_.
At the same time the noun termination _-ier_ comes to be frequently
written _-er_, as in _aumosner_, _chevaler_, _dener_, _seculer_, &c.
(beside _aumosnier_, _chevalier_, _denier_, _seculier_), and words
which had _ie_ in the stem were often written with _e_, as _bref_,
_chef_, _cher_, _pere_ (petram), _sé_, though the other forms _brief_,
_chief_, _chier_, _piere_, _sié_, still continued to be used as
alternatives in spelling[E]. It is certain that in the fourteenth
century no practical distinction was made between the two classes of
verbs that have been indicated: whether written _-ier_, _-ié_, _-iez_,
or _-er_, _-é_, _-ez_, the verbal endings of which we have spoken
rhymed freely with one another and with the similar parts of all verbs
of the first conjugation, and the infinitives and past participles
of all first-conjugation verbs rhymed with substantives ending in
_-(i)er_, _-(i)é_, _-é_: thus _pecché_, _enamouré_, _commencé_,
_bestialité_, _Mir._ 16 ff., _resemblé_, _chargé_, _sainteté_, 1349,
_coroucié_, _piée_, _degré_, 5341, are good sets of rhymes, and so also
are _deliter_, _seculer_, _plenier_, 27 ff., _coroucer_, _parler_,
_mestier_, _seculier_, _considerer_, 649 ff., and _leger_, _archer_,
_amender_, _comparer_, 2833 ff. The case is the same with words which
have the original (French) _ie_ in the stem, but notwithstanding the
fact that the diphthong sound must have disappeared, the traditional
spelling _ie_ held its ground by the side of the other, and even
extended itself to some words which had never had the diphthong sound
at all. Thus in the fourteenth century, and noticeably in Gower’s
works, we meet with such forms as _clier_, _clief_, _mier_ (mare),
_miere_ (matrem), _piere_ (patrem), _pier_ (parem), _prophiete_,
_tiel_, &c., beside the normal forms _cler_, _clef_, _mer_, _mere_, &c.
This phenomenon, which has caused some difficulty, is to be accounted
for by the supposition that _ie_, having lost its value as a diphthong,
came to be regarded as a traditional symbol in many cases for long
closed _e_, and such words as rhymed on this sound were apt to become
assimilated in spelling with those that originally had _ie_ and partly
preserved it; thus _tel_ in rhyme with _ciel_, _fiel_, might easily
come to be written _tiel_, as _Mir._ 6685; _clere_, _pere_, rhyming
with _maniere_, _adversiere_, &c., might be written _cliere_, _piere_,
as in _Mir._ 193 ff., merely for the sake of uniformity, and similarly
_nef_ when in rhyme with _ch(i)ef_, _relief_, &c., sometimes
might take the form _nief_; and finally these spellings might become
established independently, at least as alternatives, so that it was
indifferent whether _labourer_, _seculer_, _bier_, or _labourier_,
_seculier_, _ber_, stood as a rhyme sequence, whether _clere_, _appere_
was written or _cliere_, _appiere_. It may be noted that _pere_,
_mere_, _frere_, belonged to this class and were rhymed with _ẹ_. They
are absolutely separated in rhyme from _terre_, _guerre_, _enquere_,
_affere_, _contrere_, &c. The adjective ending _-el_ rhymes with
_-iel_ and often appears as _-iel_: so in 3733 ff. we have the rhymes
_mortiel_, _Michel_, _fraternel_, _viel_, in 6685 ff., _desnaturel_,
_ciel_, _fiel_, _espiritiel_, and in 14547 ff. _celestiel_, _mortiel_,
_ciel_, _temporiel_, &c. Questions have been raised about the quality
of the _e_ in this termination generally[F], but the evidence here is
decidedly in favour of _ẹ_, and the rhymes _bel_, _apell_, _flaiell_,
are kept apart from this class. It must be observed however that _fel_
(adj.), spelt also _feel_, appears in both classes, 4773, 5052. The
variation _-al_, which, as might be expected, is extremely common, is
of course from Latin and gives no evidence as to the sound of _-el_,
from which it is quite separate in rhyme. Before a nasal in verbs like
_vient_, _tient_, _ie_ is regularly retained in writing, and these
words and their compounds rhyme among one another and with _crient_,
_ghient_, _nient_, _fient_, &c. Naturally they are separated from the
_ę_ of _aprent_, _commencement_, _sagement_, &c. The forms _ben_,
_men_, _ren_, which occur for example in the _Vie de S. Grégoire_
for _bien_, _mien_, _rien_, are not found in Gower. Finally it may
be noticed that beside _fiere_, _appiere_, _compiere_, from _ferir_,
_apparer_, &c., we have _fere_, _appere_, _compere_, which in rhyme are
as absolutely separated from _fere_ (= _faire_), _terre_, _requere_
(inf.), as _fiert_, _piert_, _quiert_, &c., are from _apert_, _overt_,
_pert_. More will have to be said on the subject of this _ie_ when we
are confronted with Gower’s use of it in English.
ii. French _ai_ in tonic syllables.
(_a_) _ai_ before a nasal was in Anglo-Norman writing very commonly
represented by _ei_. This is merely a question of spelling apparently,
the sound designated being the same in either case. Our author (or his
scribe) had a certain preference for uniformity of appearance in each
set of rhymes. Thus he gives us first _solein_, _plein_, _soverein_,
_certein_, _mein_, _Evein_, in _Mir._ 73 ff., then _vain_, _grain_,
_main_, _gain_, _pain_, _vilain_, 2199 ff.; or again _haltaines_,
_paines_, _acompaines_, _compaines_, _restraines_, _certaines_, 603
ff., but _peine_, _constreine_, _vileine_, _peine_ (verb), _aleine_,
_procheine_, 2029 ff. Sometimes however the two forms of spelling are
intermixed, as _vein_, _pain_, _main_, &c., 16467 ff., or _meine_,
_humeine_, _capitaine_, 759 ff. Some of the words in the _ai_ series,
as _pain_, _gain_, _compaine_, are spelt with _ai_ only, but there
are rhyme-sequences in _-ain_ without any of these words included, as
6591 ff., _main_, _prochain_, _vilain_, _certain_, _vain_, _sain_;
also words with original French _ei_, such as _peine_, _constreine_,
_restreines_, _enseigne_, _plein_ (plenus), _veine_ (vena), _meinz_
(minus), _atteins_, _feinte_, _exteinte_, enter into the same class.
Thus we must conclude that before a nasal these two diphthongs were
completely confused. It must be noted that the liquid sound of the
nasal in such words as _enseigne_, _plaigne_, had been completely lost,
but the letter _g_ with which it was associated in French continued
to be very generally written, and by the influence of these words _g_
was often introduced without justification into others. Thus we have
the rhymes _ordeigne_, _meine_, _semeigne_ (= _semaine_), _desdeigne_,
_peine_, 2318 ff.; _peigne_ (= _peine_), _compleigne_, _pleine_,
_meine_, _halteigne_, _atteigne_, in _Bal._ iii; while in _gaign_,
_bargaign_, rhyming with _grain_, _prochain_, &c., _g_ is omitted
at pleasure. Evidently in the Anglo-Norman of this period it had no
phonetic value.
(_b_) When not before a nasal, _ai_ and _ei_ do not interchange freely
in this manner. Before _l_, _ll_, it is true, _ei_ has a tendency to
become _ai_, as in _conseil consail_ (also _consal_), _consei(l)ler
consail(l)er_, _merveille mervaille_; also we have _contrefeite_,
_souffreite_, 6305 ff., _eie_ for _aie_ (_avoir_), _eir_ for _air_
13867, _gleyve_ 14072, _meistre_ 24714, _eide_ (_eyde_) for _aide_
in the rubric headings, _paleis_ (_palois_) for _palais_, and _vois_
(representing _veis_) sometimes for _vais_ (vado); also in ante-tonic
syllables, _cheitif_, _eiant_, _eysil_, _leiter_, _meisoun_,
_meistrie_, _oreisoun_, _peisible_, _pleisir_, _seisine_, _veneisoun_,
beside _chaitif_, _allaiter_, _maisoun_, _maistrie_, _paisible_,
_plaisir_, _saisine_. This change is much less frequent, especially
in tonic syllables, than in some earlier texts, e.g. the _Vie de S.
Grégoire_.
The Anglo-Norman reduction of the diphthong _ai_ and sometimes _ei_ to
_e_, especially before _r_ and _s_, still subsists in certain words,
though the Continental French spelling is found by its side. Thus
we have _fere_, _affere_, _forsfere_, _mesfere_, _plere_, _trere_,
_attrere_, _retrere_, _tere_, _debonere_, _contrere_, rhyming with
_terre_, _guerre_, _quer(r)e_, &c.; also _mestre_, _nestre_, _pestre_,
rhyming with _estre_, _prestre_; and _pes_, _fes_ (fascem), _fetz_,
_mes_, _jammes_, _reles(s)_, in rhyme with _ades_, _pres_, _apres_,
_deces(s)_, _Moÿses_, _dess_, _mess_, _confess_. (This series of
rhymes, which has _ę_, is of course kept distinct from that which
includes the terminations _-és_ (_-ez_) in participles, &c., and such
words as _ées_, _dées_, _lées_, _prées_, _asses_, _malfés_, &c., which
all have _ẹ_.) We find also _ese_ (with the alternative forms _aese_,
_ease_, as well as _aise_), _frel_, _ele_, _megre_, _plee_ (_plai_,
_plait_), _trete_, _vinegre_, and in ante-tonic syllables _appeser_,
_enchesoun_, _esance_, _feture_, _lesser_, _mesoun_, _mestrie_,
_phesant_, _pleder_, _plesance_, _plesir_, _sesoun_, _tresoun_,
_treter_. In the case of many of these words the form with _ai_ is also
used by our author, but the two modes of spelling are kept apart in
rhymes (except l. 18349 ff., where we have _tere_, _terre_, _aquerre_,
_faire_, _mesfaire_), so that _affere_, _attrere_, rhyme with _terre_,
but _affaire_, _attraire_, with _haire_, _esclaire_, _adversaire_,
and, while _jammes_ is linked with _apres_, _ades_, _pes_, we find
_jammais_ written when the rhyme is with _essais_, _lais_, _paix_. This
may be only due to the desire for uniformity in spelling, but there is
some reason to think that it indicates in these words an alternative
pronunciation.
It is to be observed that on the neutral ground of _e_ some words with
original _ei_ meet those of which we have been speaking, in which _ai_
was reduced to _e_ in rather early Anglo-Norman times. Thus we have
_crere_ rhyming with _terre_, _affere_, &c.; _crestre_, _acrestre_,
_descrestre_, with _estre_, _nestre_; and _encres_, _descres_,
_malves_, with _apres_, _pes_. These forms, which have descended to our
author from his predecessors, are used by him side by side with the
(later) French forms _croire_, _croistre_, _acroistre_, _descroistre_,
_encrois_, _descrois_, and these alternative forms must undoubtedly
be separated from the others in sound as well as in spelling. This
being so, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the case was the
same with the _ai_ words, and that in adopting the Continental French
forms side by side with the others the writer was bringing in also the
French diphthong sound, retaining however the traditional Anglo-Norman
pronunciation in both these classes of words where it happened to be
more convenient or to suit his taste better.
(_c_) The French terminations _-aire_ and _-oire_, from Lat. _-arius_,
_-oria_, _-orius_, are employed by Gower both in his French and
English works in their Continental forms, the older Anglo-Norman
_-arie_, _-orie_, which passed into English, being hardly found in his
writings. The following are some of the words in question, most of
which occur in the _Confessio Amantis_ in the same form: _adversaire_,
_contraire_ (_contrere_), _doaire_, _essamplaire_, _lettuaire_,
_necessaire_, _saintuaire_; _consistoire_, _Gregoire_, _histoire_,
_memoire_, _purgatoire_, _victoire_. We have however exceptionally
_rectorie_ 16136, accented to rhyme with _simonye_, and also (from
Lat. _-erium_) _misterie_ (by the side of _misteire_) accented on the
ante-penultimate.
iii. French _ei_ not before a nasal.
This diphthong, which appears usually as _ei_ in the Anglo-Norman
texts of the thirteenth century, is here regularly represented by _oi_
and levelled, as in the French of the Continent, with original French
_oi_. In its relations to _e_ and _ai_ it has already been spoken
of; at present we merely note that the later French form is adopted
by our author with some few exceptions both in stems and flexion.
Isolated exceptions are _deis_ (debes) for _dois_, _heir_ by the side
of _hoir_, _lampreie_, _malveis_ (also _malvois_, _malves_), _teille_,
and _vei_ (vide) from _veoir_; also in verbs of the _-ceivre_ class
and in derivatives from them it is often retained, as _resceivre_
(but _reçoit_, _resçoivre_), _receipte_, _conceipt_ (also _conçoit_),
_conceive_, _deceite_, &c. Under the influence of rhyme we have in
6301 ff. _espleite_, _estreite_, _coveite_, rhyming with _deceite_,
_contrefeite_, _souffreite_, and 10117 ff. _pareies_ (parietes),
_veies_, _preies_, _moneies_ rhyming with _pareies_ and _journeies_
(for _parées_, _journées_); but elsewhere the forms are _exploite_,
_estroite_, _covoite_, _voie_, _proie_, _monoie_, and, in general,
Anglo-Norman forms such as _mei_, _rei_, _fei_, _treis_, _Engleis_,
have disappeared before the French _moi_, _roi_, _foy_, _trois_, &c.
The terminations of infinitives in _-eir_ have become _-oir_, except
where the form has been reduced to that of the first conjugation; and
those of imperfects and conditionals (imperfects reduced all to one
form) have regularly _oi_ instead of _ei_. There is no intermixture of
_ei_ and _oi_ inflexions, such as we find in Angier, in the _Vie de
S. Auban_, and in Bozon. In a few isolated instances we have _ai_ for
this _oi_ of inflexion, as _poait_ in _Mir._ 795, _solait_ 10605 &c.
(which last seems to be sometimes present rather than imperf.), and
_volait_ 13763. Also occasionally in other cases, as _curtais_, 5568,
in rhyme with _mais_, _mesfais_, &c., elsewhere _curtois_, _array_,
18964, rhyming with _nay_, _essay_, usually _arroy_, and _desplaie_,
_manaie_, _Bal._ xxvii. 2, elsewhere _desploie_, _manoie_. There is
however nothing like that wholesale use of _ai_ for _ei_ (_oi_) which
is especially characteristic of Langtoft, who besides the inflexion in
_-ait_ has (for example) _may_, _cray_, _ray_, for _moi_, _croy_, _roi_.
In ante-tonic syllables we may note the _ei_ of _beneiçoun_,
_freidure_, _leisir_ (usually _loisir_), _Malveisie_, _peitrine_ (also
_poitrine_), _veisin_ (beside _voisin_), _veisdye_, &c., and _ai_ in
_arraier_, _braier_.
iv. The diphthong _oe_ (_ue_) is written in a good many words, but it
may be doubted whether it had really the pronunciation of a diphthong.
The following list contains most of the words in which it is found
in the tonic syllable: _avoec_, _boef_, _coecs_ (coquus), _coer_,
_controeve_, _demoert_, _doel_, _joefne_, _moeble_, _moel_, _moet
moeve_ (from _movoir_), _moers moert moerge_ (from _morir_), _noeces_,
_noef_, _noet_, _oef_, _oel_, _oeps_, _oevre_, _poeple_, _poes poet_,
_proesme_, _soe_, _soeffre_, _soen_, _troeffe_, _troeve_, _voegle_,
_voes_ (also _voels_), _voet_ (also _voelt_). In the case of many of
these there are variations of form to _o_, _u_, _ue_, or _ui_; thus
we have _cuer_ (the usual form in the _Mirour_), _controve_, _jofne_,
_noces_, _owes_ (dissyll. as plur. of _oef_, also _oefs_, _oes_),
_ovre_, _pueple_, _pus_ (also _puiss_), _puet_ (also _poot_), _prosme_,
_sue_, _truffe_, _trove_, _volt_, and (before an original guttural)
_nuit_, _oill_ (oculum). Two of these words, _cuer_ and _oel_, occur
in rhyme, and they both rhyme with _ẹ_: _mortiel_, _oel_, _fraternel_,
_viel_, 3733 ff., and _cuer_, _curer_, _primer_, 13129 ff., by which
it would appear that in them at least the diphthong sound had been
lost: cp. _suef_ in rhyme with _chief_, _relief_, _Bal._ L. 2. The
same rhyming of _cuer_ (_quer_) occurs in the _Vie de S. Auban_, in
Langtoft and in Bozon (see M. Meyer’s introduction to Bozon’s _Contes
Moralizés_). With _avoec_ we also find _aveoc_ and _avec_, _veot_
occurs once for _voet_, and _illeoc_, _illeoque(s)_, are the forms used
from Lat. _illuc_.
v. French _ọ_ (_eu_, _ou_) from Latin _ō_ (not before nasal).
The only cases that I propose to speak of here are the terminations
of substantives and adjectives corresponding to the Latin _-orem_,
_-osus_, or in imitation of these forms. Our author has here regularly
_ou_; there is hardly a trace of the older forms in _-or_, _-ur_, and
_-os_, _-us_, and surprisingly few accommodated to the Continental
_-eur_ and _-eus_. The following are most of the words of this class
which occur with the _-eur_, _-eus_, endings: _pescheur_ (piscatorem),
_fleur_, _greigneur_, _honeur_, _meilleur_, _seigneur_ (usually
_flour_, _greignour_, _honour_, _meillour_, _seignour_); _boscheus_,
_honteus_ (usually _hontous_), _joyeuse_ (fem.) but _joyous_ (masc.),
_oiceus_ (_oiseus_), _perceus_, _piteus_ (more often _pitous_). We
have also _blasphemus_, 2450, which may be meant for _blasphemous_,
and _prodegus_, 8425 ff., which is perhaps merely the Latin word
‘prodigus.’ Otherwise the terminations are regularly _-our_, _-ous_,
except where words in _-our_ vary to _-ure_, as _chalure_, for the sake
of rhyme. The following are some of them, and it will be seen that
those which passed into the literary English of the fourteenth century
for the most part appeared there with the same forms of spelling as
they have here. Indeed not a few, especially of the _-ous_ class, have
continued unchanged down to the present day.
In _-our_: _ardour_, _blanchour_, _brocour_, _chalour_ (also
_chalure_), _colour_, _combatour_, _confessour_, _conquerour_,
_correctour_, _currour_, _desirour_, _despisour_, _devorour_, _dolour_,
_emperour_ (also _empereour_, _emperere_), _executour_, _favour_,
_gouvernour_, _guerreiour_, _hisdour_, _honour_, _irrour_, _labour_,
_langour_, _lecchour_ (also _lecchier_), _liquour_, _mockeour_,
_palour_, _pastour_, _persecutour_, _portour_, _possessour_,
_pourchaçour_ (also _pourchacier_), _priour_, _procurour_ (also
_procurier_), _professour_, _proverbiour_ (_-ier_, _-er_), _questour_
(_-ier_), _rancour_, _robbeour_, _seignour_, _senatour_, _supplantour_,
_terrour_, _tricheour_, _valour_, _ven(e)our_, _venqueour_, _vigour_,
_visitour_.